DOI 10.1515/jped-2016-0013
JoP 7 (2): 97 – 115
Using literature to explore
interpersonal theory:
Representation of rhetorical
objectification and oppression
Carol Thompson, Michael Kleine
Abstract: This essay explains pedagogical experiment at the University of Arkansas
at Little Rock using a piece of literature as a case study to examine interpersonal-communication concepts and to emphasize a course theme of objectification of other
human beings. The course, entitled Rhetoric and Communication, has two co-instructors. One instructor is from Rhetoric and Writing, the other is from Communication. This essay reviews the course they teach, along with the readings they require, and it selects The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, to illustrate how interpersonal
themes play out in a literary text and how objectification thwarts deeply personal
values. Initially, the essay summarizes key interpersonal concepts (schema theory,
coordinated management of meaning, the work of Martin Buber, and Knapp’s work
on relationship stages). It then considers students’ work as they produce a “filtered”
summary, a summary that endeavors to apply the interpersonal concepts being studied to Kafka’s work. Finally, it explains how summaries work, the “passage hunt”
exercise, and how text-based class discussions can lead to lively discussion, robust
student writing and a richer understanding of interpersonal concepts as well as the
part objectification plays in damaging relationships. Thus, the paper illustrates several pedagogical strategies as it explores how The Metamorphosis becomes a literary
case study that answers the question: how did this fictional family create communication that resulted in such communicative tragedy?
Key words: communication, pedagogy, literature, objectification, interpersonal communication, case study.
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
97
articles
Using Literature Outside of the English Department:
Representation of Rhetorical Objectification
and Oppression
This essay describes an experiment with pedagogy undertaken by two
professors who co-teach a course called Rhetoric and Communication in the
Donaghey Scholars Program at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
In this program most required core courses have been replaced by interdisciplinary co-taught courses, driven not by lecture, but by reading, oral
communication, and writing. Michael Kleine and Carol Thompson have cotaught this course for over twenty years bringing their respective disciplines
together under the umbrella of rhetoric. In Rhetoric and Communication we
consider, along with our students, both objectifying and oppressive rhetorics, and also relational and dialogical rhetorics. This paper focuses on the
pedagogical initiatives we developed to demonstrate interpersonal concepts,
to engender reflective and robust writing through filtered summaries and
text-based discussions, and to confront powerful objectifying rhetoric.
For some years now, we have developed a theme for our course to focus on
the rhetorical binaries hinted at above: objectification/inter-subjective dialog and oppression/resistance of oppression. A theme provides coherence
and structure to the planning and execution of a course; it assists in gathering course materials and deciding upon texts to be used. As we pondered
the theme for this course, it occurred to us that what we saw as salient
issues in the world involved objectification/oppression of other human beings. Further, as we reviewed the theme, we tried to determine what “Thou
shalts” seemed indispensible and each of us maintained that “Thou shalt
not objectify” is one universal principle to which we could both subscribe.
As we investigated this theme further, we recognized that objectification
of other human beings occurs virtually all over the globe as one group tries
to objectify or subdue another based on religion, class, ethnic affiliation,
gender, or sexual orientation. We knew we could not address all forms of
objectification—e.g., class, gender, religion-- in a single assignment, so we
worked to focus the concept narrowly in each unit. Thus, in our first unit,
we focused on objectification as it might occur in individuals and their families. We would begin with objectification of an individual human being and
examine how that objectification could be internalized.
Such focus has led us to reading, with our students, a scaffolded series
of four extended texts, two fictional and two non-fictional. As we read the
98
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
Using literature to explore interpersonal theory: Representation of rhetorical objectification...
texts in community with our students, we consider and apply important
concepts from the fields of interpersonal communication, of rhetoric, and
philosophy through reflective journaling, inclusive classroom discussion,
i.e., authentic dialog (Thompson & Kleine, 2015), formal oral presentations, and scholarly writing. In brief, here is a list of the texts we read that
semester:
1.Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis (1972). This is an early twentieth-century
fictional work we read in relationship to interpersonal communication
theories and concepts. We ask students to examine the novella through
speaking and writing as a representation of depersonalizing rhetoric
and the consequences of the absence of authentic dialog.
2.Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer (1951) This is a mid-century text we teach
in relationship to a heuristic list of possibilities for response, based
largely on rhetorical and literary theory (Thompson & Kleine, 2016).
Hoffer’s book explains mass movements and emphasizes the problem
of believing something so strongly that oppressive practices result. Instead of a single writing assignment, we offer our students a menu of
assignments and encourage them to add their own assignment ideas.
This section also involves asking students to develop a teaching project
focused on this book where students can apply the book to current or
historical contexts.
3.Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2000) This is a mid-twentieth
century text we read in conjunction with selected works by Martin Buber. We read Pedagogy with the hope that its examination of the resistance of oppressive practices in both educational and economically
stratified societies might contribute to our collective understanding of
how human dialog, and love in the best sense, can improve the quality
of both our classroom and external worlds of being and communicating. We encourage students to develop their own writing assignments.
After we collect these written assignments we compile them into menu
of possibilities for writing.
4.Imre Kertész’s Fatelessness (2004), This is a late twentieth century Holocaust novel read in relationship to our other texts (Kertész himself was
a Hungarian Holocaust survivor). By this point in the class, students
realize that objectification/oppression is a theme that might be examined in interpersonal and family contexts, national contexts, and international contexts. A Nobel Prize-winning novel, Fatelessness serves
to examine a context of oppression that is punctuated by moments of
dialog and human love. We invite students to write a kind of synthetic
final piece, bringing together the novel with the other books we have
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
99
articles
read together and reaching reflective closure on the course’s themes of
oppression and dialog.
As suggested earlier, the Donaghey Scholars Program charges us with incorporating rhetoric and communication into our course, with a twin focus
on speaking and writing. We have chosen to do this in a variety of ways. In
the assignment related to Eric Hoffer, for example, we use a heuristic list
of multiple rhetorical approaches and ask students to select one of these to
build a teaching presentation that elucidates Hoffer’s philosophy (Thompson
& Kleine, 2016). In one section on the history of rhetoric we ask students
to pick a rhetorician from the past and come to class as that rhetorician to
explain his or her rhetorical philosophy. Charged also with including interpersonal communication into our course we determined to explore these
concepts through fiction.
A precedent exists for examining a work of fiction in terms of communication. One of the first literary critics to see it this way was Wayne C. Booth
in his groundbreaking work, A Rhetoric of Fiction (Booth, 1985). This text
illuminated fiction in multiple ways. Essentially Booth argued that narratives can be viewed through a rhetorical lens and he saw the connection
between the reader and the author as complex and deeply communicative.
Booth “made rhetoric into a way to deal with so many of the problems of the
modern world,” explained James Phelan, Professor of English at Ohio State
University, in a telephone interview, “really about the ways in which authors
communicate to readers, and began to think more broadly about the ways
in which people on different sides of ideological divides can communicate
which each other” (Fox, 2005).
Building on Booth’s notion of seeing literature as communication, and using literature to elucidate many of issues in the world today, it made sense
to explore interpersonal communication concepts through literature itself.
As we considered which piece of literature to use as a vehicle to explore interpersonal communication we chose a literary work where the characters
were rich and complex enough to invite further analysis and application. In
Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis we found carefully defined characters so we
could engage in speculation, and critical analysis of our overarching interpersonal themes. Within this work we also find areas of mystery, things that
remain unsaid, things that are implied in terms of the characters, and areas to be imagined by the reader. Additionally, we discovered that the story
itself leads to analysis, synthesis, critical thinking, and even creativity for
our students.
100
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
Using literature to explore interpersonal theory: Representation of rhetorical objectification...
Metamorphosis seemed perfect for this analysis for several reasons. 1) the
novella is gripping, the story unique. We had searched for a story that might
prompt students to read literature hoping they would become familiar with
world classics and possibly would encourage them to read more. 2) Most literature focuses on the lives of human beings. Literature, then, can elucidate
communication in spectacular ways. Rather than the instructors writing
their own case studies (which we have done in the past), we decided to use
this as a case study because of the complexity of interpersonal issues we
saw within the text. 3) The language and themes of this particular literary
piece compel students to think deeply and critically about the communication issues we were inspecting in the course. 4) We wanted to go beyond
examining the work as a piece of aesthetic brilliance or rhetorical excellence;
we wanted to demonstrate that the piece is seething with relationships, interpersonal connections, conflicts and diverse personalities.
Finally, in Metamorphosis, we focus on interpersonal communication.
This text provides insights into theoretical insights from the Communication
field, and it is through the lens of interpersonal communication, not literary
history, rhetoric or philosophy, that we read Kafka.
A Filtered Summary of Metamorphosis
For all of the writing our students submit about the books they read, we
ask them to begin with what we call a “filtered summary.” A filtered summary is not merely a random mini-narrative; rather, it is a summary that endeavors to apply theoretical concepts we are studying to the text at hand. In
terms of Metamorphosis, student summaries vary according to an interpersonal concept of interest as it is represented by the novella. In the following
section, we provide a four-part taxonomic breakdown of the interpersonal
concepts we studied, but first, here is a filtered summary of the novella.
Metamorphosis begins when the main character, Gregor Samsa, awakens to discover that he has been transformed into a “monstrous insect.” At first the awakening does not seem to interrupt the Samsa family’s schematized existence: Gregor struggles to get up so he can fulfill
his role as the family bread-winner; his father and mother become
concerned, but their roles in the family economy are pretty much the
same; his sister at first strives to help Gregor deal with his changed
physical situation; the chief clerk arrives when Gregor fails to report to
work on time. But it quickly becomes clear that the Samsa family’s soUnauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
101
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
articles
cial world had long been devoid of positive communication, even before
Gregor’s physical transformation. For the most part, the novella goes
on to trace the further deterioration of the Samsa family’s relationship
with Gregor: the father and mother quickly separate themselves physically from Gregor, underscoring the ongoing communicative dysfunction, and even Gregor’s sister, who at first seems sympathetic to his
plight, becomes party to the family’s avoidance of his physical form
and termination of its relationship to him, and even to the termination of Gregor himself. At its core, the novella seems to focus on the
horrible consequences of human objectification: in the end, all family members see Gregor as an “it” rather than a “thou,” though it is
implicit that such objectification began even before Gregor’s metamorphosis into a literal dung beetle.
The Communication Concepts
We reviewed an array of interpersonal concepts to include in our reading of Kafka. At one time or another during our interpersonal communication section of the course, we discussed schema theory; perception theory,
including selective attention, exposure and retention, as well as closure,
creativity, and habituation; the development of self, including the Pygmalion
effect and the looking-glass self; coordinated management of meaning, or
CMM; Knapp’s relational stages of coming together and moving apart; and
Martin Buber’s notion of “I-it: and “I-Thou.”
We discussed the chosen concepts thoroughly during the three weeks
assigned to this unit and asked students to read essays, and excerpts from
various texts that would illustrate the core principles surrounding these
interpersonal concepts. Students participated in class discussions through
what we call “text-based” discussions. Before contributing to the discussion
about, say, Martin Buber, a student would be required to find a direct quote
from Buber from the assigned reading selections from his text to begin his
or her contribution to the class. For example, a student might say, “In the
fifth paragraph on page 11 of the reading we had from Martin Buber’s I and
Thou, I found the phrase, ‘all real life is meeting.’ I’d like to examine idea
in terms of our discussion. . .” At this point the student contributes to the
decision with his or her ideas, and another student might build on that
comment or offer another quotation for our consideration. Rooting our comments in the text meant that we would honor our readings, but that we
would apply and connect those readings to the discussion and to the class
as a whole.
102
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
Using literature to explore interpersonal theory: Representation of rhetorical objectification...
While we reviewed each of the concepts and applied them to the story,
students chose which theory made sense for them, which theory would
prompt a deeper look at how objectification operated on an interpersonal
level. We also explored which theory would allow a deeper understanding of
interpersonal communication itself.
From the list of communication concepts we mentioned, above, below we
review four concepts and further detail how students applied these ideas to
Metamorphosis and how our students’ critical awareness of the concepts unfolded. The four concepts we will address here include schema theory, CMM,
Knapp’s relational stages, and Martin Buber’s notion of “I-it” and “I-Thou.”
Schema theory
Frederic Barlett, a British psychologist (1932), first defined schema theory. He theorized that we form our understanding of the world through internalizing a web of abstract structures. These webs form through our daily living, with inputs from our families, peers, cultures, religions, the media, etc.
Piaget (1936), however, first proposed the term, “schema.” A schema represents an abstract concept, internal structures, or frameworks that we create
in our brains representing ways of looking at the world. For example, we
have schemas that tell us what a friend should be like, perhaps loyal, honest, funny, and kind, at least to us. This could be the schema by which we
judge our friends. If one of our friends does not have these characteristics, it
jars our image, our schema, of what a friend should be. When we were traveling during a conference in Great Britain, we came upon a fight between
three people; two were pummeling another man who fell to the ground. As
we arrived, the two attackers fled. When we asked the man on the ground
what happened, he said, “They were my mates. Mates don’t do this to other
mates.” His schema for friendship did not involve getting into a fistfight, and
we imagined his schema was damaged, and needed to be readjusted, or his
relationship with the other two was damaged because they no longer met his
schema, or internal structure, for what a friend should be like.
We have schemata for everything in our world, what characteristics a man
should have, those characteristics a woman should have, what marriage
should be like, or an even the characteristics of the family itself. In short, all
of the information we have received about the world floods into our brains
where it is classified into some sort of schema that ultimately represents the
way things should be.
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
103
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
articles
The Samsa family in Kafka’s Metamorphosis demonstrated the family had
formed a schema, a way of looking at what a family should be, with Gregor
the wage earner, and the rest of the family dependent upon him. The family
structure was tightly in place and all parties followed schematized guidelines--from Gregor and Grete, Gregor’s sister, to his mother and father.
Coordinated management of meaning (CMM)
Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronin developed CMM in the 1980’s. This is
a theory of social construction that posits we create our relationships and
even the world itself through communication. The theory is complex and
includes such ideas as coherence and mystery. With coherence, we focus on
those messages that help us determine what our world is like, and mystery
suggests that the “world is far bigger and subtler than any possible stories
we might develop,” (Pearce & Cronin, 1980, p.50). The theory also addresses
hierarchy of meanings, and coordination of meanings. Essentially, for the
purposes of class, we saw the theory as based on the flow of messages, information, data shared between two people. Analyzing this data flow, CMM
posits that we can construct positive social worlds by what we do and say.
Essentially it asks the question, “What are we making together?” It also
asks, “What do we want to make?” And “What kind of communication will
get us there?” (Pearce, 2004, p. 43).
A simple example of how our communication creates a social reality might
be simply saying “Hello.” Saying “Hello” warmly to someone we greet typically invokes a similarly warm response. A growling “Hello” might engender
a growling response back, or a quizzical look that asks, “Well now, what did
I do to deserve that?” In the first case, we are opening the door to creating
a more positive social relationship. In the second one, we are off to a poor
start. CMM suggests that “what we say is important,” because what we say
creates our social world.
In terms of the Samsa family, we ask ourselves “What were they making
together?” and “How were they making it?” Finally, “What communication
could family members do to reshape this family system?”
Knapp’s developmental stage model
Knapp’s relational model of coming together explains how people develop
relationships, i.e., how they develop over time (Knapp, 1983). The model
of coming apart details the stages people encounter as relationships break
104
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
Using literature to explore interpersonal theory: Representation of rhetorical objectification...
apart. While some relationships might follow Knapp’s stages precisely, others go backward and forward, and may even skip stages and pick them up
later. In a practical sense, then, the model may or may not be a stage model,
since the stages can be variable. The model is most useful because it provides a vocabulary, a way of looking at what is happening inside a relationship.
According to Mark Knapp, parties usually Initiate a relationship, introduce themselves, and make an impression on the other person. Next, during
Experimentation, participants want to know about each other and begin to
explore what the other person likes or dislikes as a way to determine if all
parties want the relationship to last. In the next stage, Intensifying, parties
find themselves deepening in the relationship. This stage is characterized
by feeling comfortable and familiar with friends, co-workers, or partners.
In Integration, parties move even closer, and find themselves selves labeled
as something like “best friends.” Finally, in Bonding, parties become legitimately connected. There might be a formal commitment such as a binding
contract, or a marriage if the stages are applied to a relational partner.
In Knapp’s idea of “coming apart” the relationship begins a slow decline.
After bonding, parties almost immediately move to Differentiating, starting
to separate, moving away. In Circumscribing, parties limit communication
and define boundaries separating themselves from the other person. Stagnation implies just going through the motions; the relationship seems dull,
repetitive, and boring. With Avoidance, parties intentionally move away from
each other and restrict communication. Finally, we come to Terminating,
where the relationship ends.
Of Knapp’s stages, the ones pertaining to coming apart seem to make the
most sense for the purposes of analysis in our course. Gregor is thoroughly
differentiated already when he wakes up as a dung beetle, and slowly the
family moves away from him stage by stage until the end, and final termination results. Several of our students, however, have suggested that as the
family moves apart from Gregor, it is also moving together as a unit without
Gregor. Thus, it is possible to see evidence of all of Knapp’s stages inside
the novella.
Martin Buber
Philosopher Martin Buber provides some insights into relationship patterns that seem useful for our exploration of objectification. Buber asserts
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
105
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
articles
that “In the beginning is the relation... the cradle of actual human life” (Buber, 1970, pp.60-69). Further, human beings become fully human in relation to someone else. These relationships develop through dialogue as one
person opens him or herself to another in a morally appropriate act. This,
Buber suggests, is a way to discover what is true and ethical in a relationship. Opening hearts also requires self-disclosure, taking into account the
very risk involved, the vulnerability implied in the confirmation of another
human being. Without this opening of selves, this willing mutuality, people
do not become fully realized as human beings.
Buber saw two kinds of basic relationships, the “I-it” relationship and the
“I-thou” relationship. In the I-it relationship, the perceiver treats the other
person as a thing, an object, something to be used and manipulated, something that can be used as a means to an end. In this pattern we dissolve
our human connection with other humans, and our ability to create positive
social environments diminishes.
On the other hand, in the I-thou mode, people see themselves as deeply
connected to other people. They see the other as created in their own image
and as a valued human being. In the I-thou model no one wears a mask, and
he or she becomes open to trusting the other person.
In this section students read several selected excerpts from I and Thou
(1970) by Martin Buber. We further discuss the concepts over several class
periods and students work through applying his ideas to various situations
and contexts.
Another way to view Kafka’s novella is through the lens of Martin Buber.
One could argue that Gregor was objectified, treated as an “it” even preceding the transformation. The transformation itself was a verification of how
the family and Gregor himself had already viewed himself, as an “it.” Much
evidence exists to verify this claim, and students have done outstanding
work showing these connections.
Earlier in this paper we introduced our course, our texts, and a few of the
interpersonal theories we used, what follows are examples of how we, the
faculty, and our students have used the text, or “case study,” of Metamorphosis to explicate theories of communication. This process of explaining
the theories, but then applying them to another, more complicated process
deepens our understanding of both the theories themselves and facilitates
our understanding of human relationships. Working this way, then, ena106
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
Using literature to explore interpersonal theory: Representation of rhetorical objectification...
bles and fosters a richer knowledge of how we, as individual human beings,
flourish within the particular context of our lives.
Application of Communication Theories
to a Literary Text
Our taxonomic effort to group interpersonal concepts into four categories
provides a way for our students to achieve a kind of macro-level and focused
understanding of the communication theories at hand. After we explicate
the theoretical categories in class through discussion, and we finish reading
Metamorphosis, we ask students first to write and share their own “filtered
summaries,” which prompt them to begin to apply the categories to the text.
When students share their summaries aloud (we also share our own summaries as we write with the students), we experience a kind of communitybased “reading” of the text. Our students always agree that by listening to
the summaries that others write, their understanding of both the theoretical
concepts AND the novella deepens considerably. Then students are asked
to join us in a “passage hunt.” This hunt involves foregrounding one of the
four concepts and then searching for passages from the text that seem to
resonate with the concept at hand. This search not only leads to close reading of the text, but also what we want to call “selective reading” or “synthetic
reading,” reading in which communication theory illuminates the text and
in which the text illuminates the theory.
Below we provide block quotes of passages from Metamorphosis that our
students have noticed and shared in the past. We have highlighted student
selections in our own copies of the novella, but often the passages we notice
correspond with passages our students notice, leading to what we want to
call here “double-underlining.” When double-underlining occurs, both of us
often share our delight that “we are on the same page.”
Schema theory
The passage below, double-underlined in a copy of the novella, seems to
demonstrate the rigidity of Gregor’s schemata regarding his role as a “tool”
and the probable consequences of reporting in “sick”:
He was a mere tool of the chief, spineless and stupid. Well, suppose he
reported sick? But that would be very awkward and look suspicious,
for Gregor hadn’t gone sick once during the five years of his employUnauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
107
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
articles
ment. The chief would be sure to come along with the doctor from
the health-insurance, would reproach his parents for the idleness of
their son, and would cut short all excuses by the insurance doctor,
for whom of course the world was composed exclusively of perfectly
healthy but work-shy individuals. (Kafka, p. 78)
Many other passages reveal Gregor’s schema regarding his role as a kind
of working automaton in the family economy, but the above passage seems
especially illustrative of schema theory; for in it, we can find the presence of
“meta-schemata,” or schemata about the schemata of others. Gregor’s schema regarding the schema of the insurance doctor (regarding company workers) serves to reinforce Gregor’s personal schema that his role as a worker is
to work even when sick (or transformed). Needless to say, when our students
also notice this passage it leads to a robust discussion of not only schema
theory, but also the theory of other minds.
Coordinated management of meaning
For both of us, Metamorphosis provides an edifying representation of dysfunctional communication and also representation of a dysfunctional family
system. As we explain earlier, Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM)
helps us all to understand the existential and ethical imperative that we, as
humans, must choose to “manage meaning” in such a way that a positive social climate is constructed. Michael would not have known about CMM without co-teaching with Carol, whose home department stresses this theory,
but now we both see clearly the epistemic and social/communicative value
of the theory. When teaching CMM, we ask students to read and apply some
of the academic work of Pearce and Cronin (1980) to the novella. So CMM,
like schema theory, becomes the focal point for yet another passage search.
Our students mostly agree that the novella illustrates perfectly the absence of a positive social world and also the blocked and asymmetric meaning-management system that plagues both Gregor and his family. As the
following double-underlined passage shows, Gregor’s access to CMM is
blocked as his family members talk--not to him, but around him; and even
the communication between his mother and his sister, Grete, is separated,
metaphorically and in fact, by walls:
“Oh heavens,” cried his mother, already in tears, “perhaps he’s seriously ill, and here we are tormenting him. Grete! Grete!” she then cried.
“Mother?” called his sister from the other side. They were communi108
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
Using literature to explore interpersonal theory: Representation of rhetorical objectification...
cating through Gregor’s room. “You must get the doctor this minute.
Gregor is ill. Run for the doctor, quick. Did you hear how Gregor was
speaking just then?” (Kafka, p. 85)
Some of our students go on to medical school, and the passage provides
us all with a great example of diagnostic objectification—in which patients
are sometimes silent and talked “over” by physicians, who consider symptoms but do not manage the meaning of those symptoms with patients. Too,
we endeavor to discuss just how the blocked communication system might
be resolved with positive CMM. Students usually agree: “All of them need to
be in the same room and talking with (not to) one another.”
Knapp’s developmental stage model
As we mentioned earlier in this paper, Knapp’s stage model for human
relationships is bi-directional. It explains how positive human relationships progress over time, and it also shows how relationships disintegrate
over time. Kafka gives us a view of relational disintegration that includes
all characters, but especially troubling (and violent) is the disintegration
of Gregor’s relationship with his father, who eventually throws an apple at
Gregor that lodges in his carapace and that seems to be the principal cause
of his death. Gregor’s relationships with his employer, mother, sister, etc.
also deteriorate, and do so along the lines suggested by Knapp’s model, but
his relationship with his father deteriorates at a later phase and at a faster
pace. Nevertheless, Knapp’s model can still be applied to the father-son “relationship.” We can infer that Gregor’s relationship with his father had begun to deteriorate before his metamorphosis (and the beginning of the novella), that in fact the stages of differentiation, circumscription, and stagnation
had perhaps already occurred following Gregor’s service as a military officer.
So our students tend to notice both avoidance and termination, mainly, as
the father violently separates himself from his son, but they also learn to
make inferences about the time before the text. In the first part of the novella, avoidance and termination seem to merge as the chief clerk flees:
Now unfortunately Gregor’s father, who had kept relatively cool so far,
seemed to be totally confused by this flight of the chief clerk, for instead of running after him himself, or at least not hindering Gregor in
his pursuit of him, he seized with his right hand the chief clerk’s walking stick, which he had left behind on a chair together with his hat
and overcoat, grabbed a large newspaper from the table with his left
hand, and to the accompaniment of much stamping of the feet set
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
109
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
articles
about driving Gregor back into his room by flourishing the stick and
the newspaper. (Kafka, p. 90)
It would be tempting to move into the realm of literary analysis with this
passage, noticing the biographical details of Kafka’s life and the Freudian
(and phallic) aspects of the father-son relationship, but both of us resolutely
steer clear of such analysis, choosing instead to see the text as a kind of
case study of relational deterioration.
In the dynamic of studying Knapp with the novella, our students nudged
us into seeing something fascinating which we had not at first noticed by
ourselves. As Gregor’s relationship with his family deteriorates, and following his death, we can see the other relational direction described by Knapp:
relational bonding and even fruition. Here is the concluding passage from
the novella, which our students used to support such a position:
While they were thus conversing, it struck the Samsa parents almost
at the same moment, as they observed their daughter’s increasing liveliness, that despite all the labours which had turned her cheeks pale
she had recently blossomed into a pretty and shapely girl. Growing
quieter now, and coming almost unconsciously to agreement by an exchange of glances, they reflected that the time was also ripe to find her
a good husband. And it was like a confirmation of their new dreams
and good intentions when at the end of the journey their daughter was
the first to rise to her feet and stretch her young body.
For each of us, especially exciting about our students’ passage find regarding Knapp and the novella was that they had become our teachers. In
the relational development of our classroom community, we enjoyed a deeper relational bond with our “students.”
Martin Buber
It may be obvious by now that, by considering each of the four theoretical
concepts presented in relationship to Metamorphosis, the systemic relationship of the concepts began to appear. In the end, we all began to see the
concepts not as discrete taxonomic categories, but as theories that, to put
it simply, “had to do with one another.” This became especially clear to us
when we moved to reading and applying excerpts which students had read
from the work of Martin Buber’s I and Thou (1970). In many ways, then, the
class we teach endeavors to confront issues of human objectification and
110
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
Using literature to explore interpersonal theory: Representation of rhetorical objectification...
oppression. And Buber’s admonition that we need to see others not as “its”
(objects) but as “thous” (subjects) elegantly and powerfully addresses the
problem of objectification. After considering Buber, our students quickly
saw that rigid schemas often relied on objectification, that positive CMM was
impeded by objectification, and that objectification (in opposition to communication) was at the heart of relational deterioration. We were delighted by
a neologism that emerged among our students during discussion of Buber
and what happened to poor Gregor: “itification.” Morphologically, the word
led to “itifying,” “itness,” “deitification” and other catchy neologisms. The
pronoun “it” was on our minds when we collectively began the fourth passage search. We had all agreed that Gregor’s sister had at first resisted the
objectifying impulses of his father, but nearly all of us double-underlined
the following passage, in which Grete moves into the later stages of relational deterioration:
“Dear parents,” said his sister, slapping her hand on the table by way
of introduction, “things can’t go on like this. Perhaps you don’t realize
that but I do. I refuse to utter my brother’s name in the presence of
this monster, and so all I say is: we must try and get rid of it. We’ve
done everything humanly possible to look after it and put up with it,
I don’t believe anyone can reproach us in the slightest”. (Kafka, p. 119)
From Reading, Speaking, and Listening to Writing
We have developed several iterations of the formal writing assignment
having to do with interpersonal communication theory applied to Kafka’s novella. Below we provide our most recent version.
Examining The Metamorphosis
Through the Lens of Interpersonal/Perceptual Theory
In writing this paper, please try to examine The Metamorphosis through
the lens of Interpersonal/Perceptual theory. In order to do this, you must
first selectively summarize the text in an effort to establish a communicative or family dysfunction that you see represented in the novella.
Then you need to make a claim in which you endeavor to apply a particularly interpersonal or perceptual theory in an effort to explain why
the dysfunction exists or develops as it does. Following your claim, you
need to provide what we are calling a filtered summary of the theory
you are applying. You need, then, to provide textual evidence from the
novella to show why you think the theory might account for the dysfuncUnauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
111
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
articles
tion. In concluding, try to apply your thinking reflectively to an interpersonal dysfunction you experienced yourself—and suggest a way of
remedying the dysfunction.
Here is a structural model you might employ when writing the paper:
1.Selectively summarize the text by focusing on the dysfunction that you
find particularly problematical or vexing. A summary cannot possibly
capture the entirety of the text; instead, it needs to focus on your personal
reading of a problem or dysfunction.
2.Make a claim (a “thesis statement”) that uses a particular interpersonal
or perceptual theory to shed light on the problem your summary has highlighted.
3.After making the claim, try to define or explain the theory you are attempting to apply. Do some research to provide at least one additional
source for this theory outside of our discussion in class.
4.The body of the paper should focus on aggregating textual examples of
the dysfunction and how the theory you chose sheds light on the passages at hand. You can use paraphrase or quotations to present textual
examples. If you use direct quotation, you need to indicate, in parentheses, the page (or pages) in which the quote appears.
5.The conclusion should reflect upon your personal experience with the
dysfunction that interests you and endeavor to explain how the the dysfunction might be resolved or ameliorated.
This assignment, as well as the text-based discussions and the passage
hunt described earlier, prompt both students and instructors to view literature and interpersonal theory in diverse ways, to see in the tangle of
concepts related to literature something marvelously unique and intriguing.
Moreover, when interpersonal theory and fiction collide, we often see an
explosion of creativity. Students submit writing that is intelligent, analytic,
and lively.
The interpersonal theories we introduce are intriguing and new for most
students. Most of our students have mainly experienced looking at literature in traditional ways through formal, historical, biographical, and artistic
lenses. Bringing interpersonal theories and literature together opens many
new avenues for analysis. We find students making deeper claims; their
writing becomes at once more pointed and more nuanced. In short, the
process examined above gives students something “novel” to say in writing.
Here are a few examples of the kinds of original claims our students make:
112
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
Using literature to explore interpersonal theory: Representation of rhetorical objectification...
• In Kafka’s novella, we can see how the rhetoric of objectification reduces
not only Gregor, but also his family members, to “its” instead of “thous.”
• Throughout Metamorphosis, Knapp’s model of relational deterioration
can be observed; ironically, though, following Gregor’s death, we can see
the genesis of the early stages of relational renewal among the remaining
members of the Samsa family. We are left wondering whether this renewal
can endure if family communication norms remain the same.
• Perhaps because they are locked into rigid schemas for family roles and
communication patterns, the Samsa family seems incapable of engaging
in the kind of Coordinated Management of Meaning that just might lead
to the creation of a positive social world.
After our students complete rough drafts of their papers, they meet in
small groups to conference one another toward effective revision. Before
these groups meet, we encourage our students to engage in the kind of
genuine, inclusive, and constructive dialog that is decidedly missing in the
novella, which becomes, in the end, a kind of case study of communicative
failure. In other words, it is our hope that in their own interpersonal interactions in the class and in the writing groups, our students will transcend
objectifying impulses and, through inter-subjective dialog, create a positive
classroom world.
Final Reflections
In this essay we described how one piece of literature fits into our pedagogical plan as one assignment in our course in Rhetoric and Communication. We see this piece of literature here as a case study, with multiple
scenes for analysis, as a vehicle for examining vital interpersonal concepts
that shape how human beings view each other and co-construct their
worlds and how objectification/oppression shape interpersonal outcomes.
Specifically, we have described four of the interpersonal concepts we cover
in class--including Schema Theory, Coordinated Management of Meaning,
Knapp’s Relational Stages, and the philosophy of Martin Buber. Further, we
have described both the “text-based discussion” and the “passage hunt” in
which both instructors and students look for passages within the text to illustrate the interpersonal concepts encountered in class.
As our students deepen their understanding of interpersonal communication, and the utterly damaging role objectification and oppression play in
human relationships, the concepts begin to vibrate through literature and
in our students’ own lives. At the same time they also are treated to the exUnauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
113
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
articles
perience of great literature. As writer C.S. Lewis explained, “Literature adds
to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches the competencies that
daily life requires and provides; and in this respect it irrigates the deserts
that our lives have already become” (2015). Not only does our course show
how powerfully interpersonal communication affects how we construct our
social worlds, as C.S. Lewis suggests, it also provides a vista into the always
illuminating world of literature.
R e fe re n c e s
Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Booth, W. C. (1985). The rhetoric of fiction, 2nd Ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1961).
Buber, M. (1970). I and thou (Walter Kaufmann, Trans.). New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster. (Original work published 1923).
Fox, M. (2005, October). Wayne C. Booth, critic who analyzed rhetoric, dies at 84,
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://nyti.ms/23wfI6K.
Freire P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Myra Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New
York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1968).
Hoffer, E. (1951). The true believer. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Kafka, F. (1972). The metamorphosis (Stanley Corngold, Trans.). New York, NY: Bantam Books. (Original work published 1915).
Knapp, M. (1983). Dyadic relationship development. In J. Wiemann & R. Harrison
(Eds.), Nonverbal Interaction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Knapp, M., Ellis, D., & Williams, B. (1980). Perceptions of communication behavior
associated with relationship terms. Communication Monographs, 47, 262-278.
Knapp, M., & Vangelisti, A. (1992). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kertész, I. (2004). Fatelessness (Tim Wilkinson, Trans.). New York, NY: Random
House.
Lewis, C. S. (2015). The New York C.S. Lewis Society. Retrieved from http://www.
nycslsociety.com/books.html.
Pearce, W. B., & Cronen, V. (1980). Communication, action and meaning: The creation
of social realities. New York, NY: Praeger.
Pearce W. B. (2004). Using CMM. Woodside, California: A Pearce Associates Seminar.
Retrieved from http://www.pearceassociates.com/essays/cmm_seminar.pdf.
Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Thompson, C., & Kleine, M. (2015). An interdisciplinary dialog about teaching and
learning dialogically. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 173-185.
Thompson, C., & Kleine, M. (2016). Varied responses as a means to the richness of
discourse: Reading tough texts through speaking and writing. International Journal
for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(5), 1-7.
114
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM
Using literature to explore interpersonal theory: Representation of rhetorical objectification...
Authors:
Carol L. Thompson, Professor
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Department of Communication
2801 S. University Avenue
Little Rock
AR 72204
USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Michael Kleine, Professor
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Department of Rhetoric and Writing
2801 S. University Avenue
Little Rock
AR 72204
USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Unauthenticated
journal of pedagogy 2/2016
115
Download Date | 6/14/17 8:58 PM